The precedent is clear: a "priveleged expert" (a) can libel his critics as being complicit in murder, i.e., a lynching http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage&a... +

whereas (b) citing verifiable sources is construed by the good ol' boy network as "personal attacks".

Fred said:

"I more or less agree with you on the Venona material"

Fred:

Do you have any sources to support Cberlet original research POV? Please give him a hand if so.

Nobs01

On 1/19/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:

It's pretty clear that he doesn't mean a lynching in a literal sense, so it doesn't count as libel under any interpretation.

As an aside, my guess is that we do have a Jihadist or two, certainly on the arabic wiki I would assume. I've often wondered how many CIA agents and etc.. we have as well. They would be very foolish to completely refrain from reviewing or interacting with such a dynamic source of data.

On topic, I think describing wiki-events in hyperbolic terms is stressful and encourages squabbling. It also embarrasses me and makes me think i might have go to the pub instead of edit the wiki, if I want to engage in a rigourous dialogue ;)

Perhaps we could have a lesser version of No Personal Attacks advising against describing an edit war or deletion of ones vanity page a holocaustic genocide, or an arbcom case as a "racial attack" and Lynching (the former I don't know of having occurred, the second refers to a current ARBCOM case ;)

Sam Spade

In any event, this is no more "libel" than your own hysterical line about "crusaders and jihadists," which I assume was probably not actually a meant to be interpretted as anybody on Wikipedia actively being members of the 15th century European invasion of the Holy Land or active members of Islamic extremist movements.

FF

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com Date: Jan 22, 2006 1:06 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A Wikipedia lynching To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org

As cited, using Wikipedia as a forum for unsourced criticism of Prof. Harvey Klehr occurs here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Americans_in_the_Veno...

"It is about the legacy of the Cold War, anticommunist Witch Hunts, Red-baiting, and McCarthyism. Haynes and Klehr and Romerstein are part of a project to make it appear that violations of civil liberties during the Cold War and McCarthyism were justified"

Here the "project" becomes the "Venona Posse project" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage&a...

Here he refers to Prof. Klehr's work as "outrageous McCarthyite POV Red-baiting defamatory Blacklist "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Americans_in_the_Venona_pa...

"berlet posse" bring up 673 Google results http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=berlet+posse&btnG=Google+Search *All* linked to "right-wing extremist groups." See for example SourceWatch http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Chip_Berlet "Berlet specializes in tracking and analyzing right-wing movements. He has written about the John Birch Society, armed militias, Ku Klux Klan, Posse Comitatus, Aryan Nations, Christian Identity, racist skinheads, and the Lyndon LaRouche fascist cult."

These smears fail Wikipedia *policy (policy, *i.e., a rule) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civility#Examples and are defamatory. Nonetheless, ArbCom remonstrances failed consideration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_o...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_o...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_o...

The record is clear, and issues have not changed. It should be noted, I have chosen to work within the project regarding the host of criticisms directed at Wikipedia's credibility, and not taken my case outside Wikipedia, despite a genuine interest in what has been termed the "cultic" nature of concerted efforts to censor and silence people of good will inside Wikipedia

Nobs01

Beg pardon, but the author of this incivility states at least a half dozen times in Talk he is well aware of the sourcing; here for example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Americans_in_the_Veno...

The question is, can he again use Wikipedia prescribed Dispute Resolution Processess to impugn his own professional critics, not further the writing of an encyclopedia, and get the NLG good 'ol boy network to assist his smears http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration...

For those concerned about Wikipedia's credibility as a viable source, this bares watching. I have opted to work within the project to call attention to this abuse, and not tell my story outside.

nobs

On 1/23/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:

"Rob Smith" nobs03@gmail.com wrote in message news:52a8cf060601221206t3fe7d93bm41bfe58f23696658@mail.gmail.com ... [snip]

I selected this because it's the quickest to refute:

...

Here he refers to Prof. Klehr's work as "outrageous McCarthyite POV Red-baiting defamatory Blacklist "

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Americans_in_the_Venona_pa...

No he doesn't.

He earlier added some commentary on the list which according to the edit summary "added critical POV to balance page list".

This was then removed with the comment "this page is a list of names, not a forum to debate their significance".

The edit in question restres the commentary with the summary"Revert: Otherwise this is an outrageous McCarthyite POV Red-baiting defamatory Blacklist".

In other words, the words you quote above refer to our article on the subject, not to the list itself, with the disclaimer that this description covers a version of the list without commentary.

My phrase of the week: ingenuous cobblers [1]

HTH HAND

Phil [[en:User:Phil Boswell]] [1] definitional nitpickers can go hang, I like it and I'm taking it home for a pet :-)

I'm with Sean here. Nobs is a banned user. He has a long long history of personal attacks. If he's just going to use this list to attack people (no matter if it's a valid reason or not), I'm not sure how helpful it is to let him post here. Mike

On 1/28/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:

I may recuse should the matter come to arbitration, but it will not be because I am a friend of Chip Berlet, we may have briefly encountered one another 30 years ago, but there was no further personal or political relationship, although I admire his work. You make much of the notion that mere membership in the same organization signifies a close conspiratorial relationship. I am more likely to recuse because I admire Haynes and Klehr and might feel that I could not be fair to Chip if I ruled on the matter. You just don't get it. If I feel I can be fair I don't recuse, if I feel I can be, I don't.

And you don't understand the Lawyers Guild. For example one matter involved a group of illegal immigrants who had joined a union. The employer then turned them into immigration and tried to fire them because they were illegals. Now, as long as they didn't join a union. he was just fine with that. That's the sort of stuff we worked on. That sort of work has nothing to do with the issues you are fussing over.

Fred

On Jan 28, 2006, at 11:17 AM, Rob Smith wrote:

...

The question is, can he again use Wikipedia prescribed Dispute Resolution Processess to impugn his own professional critics, not further the writing of an encyclopedia, and get the NLG good 'ol boy network to assist his smears http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/ Proposed_decision&diff=29531355&oldid=29476030

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

His attacks are of the smear by personal association type. One link he made in a recent article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/ Proposed_decision&diff=29531355&oldid=29476030

This attempts to smear me based on my membership in the Lawyers Guild 30 years ago. It was aggravated instances of this behavior that got him a one year ban.

Fred

On Jan 29, 2006, at 6:06 AM, Mark Ryan wrote:

A quick perusal of this user's postings to the mailing list does not scream out "personal attacks!" to me. Could someone kindly point out which parts of his posts can be construed as personal attacks? I'm not about to kick someone off the mailing list just for being banned on Wikipedia proper.

~Mark Ryan WikiEN-l mailing list admin

On 29/01/06, Michael Lindeen wikikitty@gmail.com wrote:

...

I'm with Sean here. Nobs is a banned user. He has a long long history of personal attacks. If he's just going to use this list to attack people (no matter if it's a valid reason or not), I'm not sure how helpful it is to let him post here. Mike

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Dear Sir:

The record will reveal I have been accused of 1 (one) personal attack in my Wikipedia career, which occurred during my first ArbCom hearing, not being familiar with the process. Likewise I have never recieved a 3RR warning. I assume you misspoke, repeating the smears against me manufactured by the staff of Political Research Associates.

On 1/28/06, Michael Lindeen wikikitty@gmail.com wrote:

I'm with Sean here. Nobs is a banned user. He has a long long history of personal attacks. If he's just going to use this list to attack people (no matter if it's a valid reason or not), I'm not sure how helpful it is to let him post here. Mike

On 1/28/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:

...

I may recuse should the matter come to arbitration, but it will not be because I am a friend of Chip Berlet, we may have briefly encountered one another 30 years ago, but there was no further personal or political relationship, although I admire his work. You make much of the notion that mere membership in the same organization signifies a close conspiratorial relationship. I am more likely to recuse because I admire Haynes and Klehr and might feel that I could not be fair to Chip if I ruled on the matter. You just don't get it. If I feel I can be fair I don't recuse, if I feel I can be, I don't.

And you don't understand the Lawyers Guild. For example one matter involved a group of illegal immigrants who had joined a union. The employer then turned them into immigration and tried to fire them because they were illegals. Now, as long as they didn't join a union. he was just fine with that. That's the sort of stuff we worked on. That sort of work has nothing to do with the issues you are fussing over.

Fred

On Jan 28, 2006, at 11:17 AM, Rob Smith wrote:

...

The question is, can he again use Wikipedia prescribed Dispute Resolution Processess to impugn his own professional critics, not further the writing of an encyclopedia, and get the NLG good 'ol boy network to assist his smears http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/ Proposed_decision&diff=29531355&oldid=29476030

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

OK. Thank you for the clarifying. Incidently, the NLG evidently has several branches or arms, like its "Police Crimes" and Labor issues groups. Any insight you'd be willing to share on its internal organization would be appreciated.

nobs

On 1/29/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:

The Arbitration Committee found you engaged in a lengthy personal attack on the talk page of [[Chip Berlet]] based on posting there of a large amount of negative material associated with the National Lawyer's guild, most of which Chip Berlet had no known involvement with. That got you a month. Then during the arbitration you converted your user page into an extended personal attack of the same sort. That got you the year. That makes two.

Fred

On Jan 29, 2006, at 1:48 PM, Rob Smith wrote:

...

Dear Sir:

The record will reveal I have been accused of 1 (one) personal attack in my Wikipedia career, which occurred during my first ArbCom hearing, not being familiar with the process. Likewise I have never recieved a 3RR warning. I assume you misspoke, repeating the smears against me manufactured by the staff of Political Research Associates.

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Fred,

Some good points; it should be noted, I AGF with you and the Committee during the process. It's not my place to tell you how to run your bidness, but it appears now you handed Cberlet a licence to continue his incivility, as I prophesized. A modicum of balance in the proceeding could have helpful.

As for the NLG, it really is a unique organization that doesn't come under the Subversive Activities Control Board, nonetheless Congressional Records as late as 1994 refer to it as a "cited Communist Front organization." I assume your membership was benign, and likewise you should be afforded the opportunity to declaim support for Soviet foreign policy. It's not like you've been accused of a lynching.

nobs

On 1/28/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:

I may recuse should the matter come to arbitration, but it will not be because I am a friend of Chip Berlet, we may have briefly encountered one another 30 years ago, but there was no further personal or political relationship, although I admire his work. You make much of the notion that mere membership in the same organization signifies a close conspiratorial relationship. I am more likely to recuse because I admire Haynes and Klehr and might feel that I could not be fair to Chip if I ruled on the matter. You just don't get it. If I feel I can be fair I don't recuse, if I feel I can be, I don't.

And you don't understand the Lawyers Guild. For example one matter involved a group of illegal immigrants who had joined a union. The employer then turned them into immigration and tried to fire them because they were illegals. Now, as long as they didn't join a union. he was just fine with that. That's the sort of stuff we worked on. That sort of work has nothing to do with the issues you are fussing over.

Fred

On Jan 28, 2006, at 11:17 AM, Rob Smith wrote:

...

The question is, can he again use Wikipedia prescribed Dispute Resolution Processess to impugn his own professional critics, not further the writing of an encyclopedia, and get the NLG good 'ol boy network to assist his smears http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/ Proposed_decision&diff=29531355&oldid=29476030

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Well it sounds better than "support for Soviet democide of Afghanistan."

On 1/29/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:

How gracious of you.

On 1/29/06, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:

...

you should be afforded the opportunity to declaim support for Soviet foreign policy.

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Rob Smith stated for the record:

The record is clear enough; as Mr. Bauder said, "some do their best",engaging in incivility and name calling http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitr... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? Others who respond once are [[Bowdlerized|Baudlerized]].

nobs

Dear List Moderators:

Is this person contributing anything useful to this mailing list, or is he using it only to whin(g)e and launch personal attacks?

- -- Sean Barrett | "Oh, bugger," said Pooh, feeling a sean@epoptic.org | little more forthright than usual.